+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: CUSA targets and vulnerabilities (/thread-929579.html)
Pages: 1 2
CUSA targets and vulnerabilities - bullet - 09-14-2021 02:54 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/conference-usa-roundtable-expansion-candidates-and-targets/ar-AAOqO7M
Good read on several sportswriters opinions on who the CUSA could least afford to lose, who they are most likely to lose and what they do.
RE: CUSA targets and vulnerabilities - bill dazzle - 09-14-2021 03:00 PM
(09-14-2021 02:54 PM)bullet Wrote: https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/conference-usa-roundtable-expansion-candidates-and-targets/ar-AAOqO7M
Good read on several sportswriters opinions on who the CUSA could least afford to lose, who they are most likely to lose and what they do.
Good find. I did not realize FAU football offered such plusses.
RE: CUSA targets and vulnerabilities - b0ndsj0ns - 09-14-2021 03:07 PM
(09-14-2021 03:00 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:(09-14-2021 02:54 PM)bullet Wrote: https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/conference-usa-roundtable-expansion-candidates-and-targets/ar-AAOqO7M
Good read on several sportswriters opinions on who the CUSA could least afford to lose, who they are most likely to lose and what they do.
Good find. I did not realize FAU brought such a robust number of plusses.
I think that's very much up for debate. On the hierarchy I think the AAC is probably picking on in no particular order
Academics
Facilities/Budget
Football Strength
Basketball Strength
Market
They'd probably fit the AAC metrics in for sure market, good enough in football strength and football facilities but absolutely dreadful in basketball facilities and basketball quality and for whatever this is worth they'd be the lowest rated school on the USNWR rankings by a pretty wide margin.
RE: CUSA targets and vulnerabilities - Wedge - 09-14-2021 03:25 PM
Don’t understand why any of those writers think that a 14-team conference would have to find replacements if they lose two teams.
RE: CUSA targets and vulnerabilities - Fighting Muskie - 09-14-2021 04:16 PM
Was there a paid endorsement by FAU in that article?
RE: CUSA targets and vulnerabilities - esayem - 09-14-2021 04:21 PM
(09-14-2021 04:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: Was there a paid endorsement by FAU in that article?
Right?!?!
No way the Golden Brahman are going for that. That’s a BYU-Utah State situation right there.
Long live the Bluebonnet Bowl!
RE: CUSA targets and vulnerabilities - IWokeUpLikeThis - 09-14-2021 04:32 PM
FAU is only getting in if the Golden Brahman find a way out.
RE: CUSA targets and vulnerabilities - Fighting Muskie - 09-14-2021 04:48 PM
C-USA and the SBC are an odd mix of schools whose trajectories are impossible to predict.
You’ve got some rural schools with smaller enrollments that have played football for a long time and have pretty decent followings but are about at their max for potential.
You’ve got some more urban schools who are newer to the game that could grow into something great with the right combination of coaching hires. At the same time, if they can’t break through, they’ll never break the commuter school stigma or get out of the shadow of the local NFL brand.
UTSA is one that could turn into a beast if they could get it together.
RE: CUSA targets and vulnerabilities - TOPSTRAIGHT - 09-14-2021 04:55 PM
I call balk on that FAU football attendance figure.
RE: CUSA targets and vulnerabilities - DavidSt - 09-14-2021 05:02 PM
Here are some ideas.
George Mason R1
Georgia state R1
Montana State R1
Rice R1
Stony Brook R1
Albany R1
UTA R1
Buffalo R1
UAB R1
UConn R1
Delaware R1
UMass R1
New Hampshire R1
North Texas R1
FIU R1
S. Miss. R1
Milwaukee R1
VCU R1
Arkansas State R2
Ball State R2
Bowling Green
Central Michigan
'Florida A&M
FAU
Georgia Southern
Illinois State
Jackson State
Kennesaw State
La. Tech
Marshall
Mercer
Miami Ohio
North Carolina A&T
North Dakota State
Northern Illinois
Ohio U.
ODU
Saint Louis
South Dakota State
Southern Illinois
Montana
UTSA
Little Rock
Dayton
La.-Lafayette
UMBC
Charlotte
URI
South Alabama
Toledo
Vermont
Villanova
Western Michigan
Belmont R3
Dallas Baptist
Indiana State
Lamar
Liberty
Lincoln Memorial
Mid. Tenn. State
Missouri State
N. Kentucky
Sam Houston State
SFAU
Chattanooga
Towson
UCA
La.-Monroe
North Florida
Valparaiso
Western Kentucky
L4
Appalachian State
College of Charleston
Eastern Kentucky
FGCU
Jacksonville State
James Madison
Murray State
Troy
Central Oklahoma
North Alabama
Southern Indiana
Youngstown State
I do think football product could be North Dakota State and South Dakota State as a pair of football only and bringing in Dayton and VCU for the rest of the sports.
The problem is you want to add teams that have not been good in football to the AAC. The two Dakota schools and Dayton and VCU can fixed the football and men's basketball.
Arkansas State have a better record than UAB in football the last ten years. Toledo, Northern Illinois and Ohio U. are up there as well. Northern Illinois wanted to get out of the MAC because midweek football games is hurting their ticket sales.
RE: CUSA targets and vulnerabilities - AppManDG - 09-14-2021 05:07 PM
The only SB school that would remotely be interested in jumping to CUSA is Texas State. However.... Marshall and USM are in the SB's crosshairs. One other if GA State goes AAC, which I think is a very real possibility.
RE: CUSA targets and vulnerabilities - herdfan129 - 09-14-2021 05:19 PM
I'll let you all look at the info and make your own decision as to who is the most valuable in CUSA.
Total Weeks In FBS Top 25 Since 2014
CFP/Coach's Poll/AP Poll
Marshall- 3/16/15 (Highest Rank #15) (Ranked #15 three different weeks)
UAB- 0/0/1 (Highest Rank #25)
FAU- None
Football winning % from 2014-2020 (Info courtesy of PicksUp)
Marshall 65.4
UAB 64.2
FAU 47.4
Last Five Years AVG Massey Rankings
Marshall CUSA 60
FAU CUSA 61
UAB CUSA 68
Average Football Attendance
Marshall- 24,590
UAB- 24,196 (Only four seasons as they shut their program down for two years)
FAU 15,903
Average Basketball Attendance
Marshall- 5,433
UAB- 3,091
FAU- 1,219
Average TV Viewership since 2013
Marshall Average TV Ratings 2013:
ESPN: 1.804 Million (4 games over 2 Million)
CBS: 1.25 Million
ESPN2: 752k
ESPNU: 436k
FS1: 284k
FAU Average TV Ratings Since 2013
Fox- 2.003 Million
ABC- 1.99 Million (One Game)
ESPN- 1.320 Million
FS1- 121k
Average UAB TV Viewership Since 2013
ESPN- 935k
ESPN2- 722k
ESPNU- 578k
FS1- 79k
RE: CUSA targets and vulnerabilities - TOPSTRAIGHT - 09-14-2021 05:32 PM
I'll just throw this in here:
There are only three reasons the SBC media deal is better (marginally) than C-USA.
1.) SBC was willing to sign a LONG term deal giving everything over to espn. This caps their value ( to a large extent) and gives them little wiggle room- "captive".
2.) C-USA leadership was unable to secure a good media agreement due to INEPTNESS and being unwilling to sign for those terms.
3.) KEY reason-- SBC was willing to take a lot of weeknights.
This does not make all SBC teams "worth" more. It just means they were willing to sign a one-sided (IMO) contract. It might be worth it and a gamble SBC leadership was willing to take. Or maybe not.
RE: CUSA targets and vulnerabilities - Yosef Himself - 09-14-2021 05:38 PM
(09-14-2021 05:32 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote: I'll just throw this in here:
There are only three reasons the SBC media deal is better (marginally) than C-USA.
1.) SBC was willing to sign a LONG term deal giving everything over to espn. This caps their value ( to a large extent) and gives them zero wiggle room- "captive".
SBC's media deal was through 2028 and just reupped till 2031. We wiggled to more money and linear games. Have a stellar year and renegotiate when possible
Quote:3.) KEY reason-- SBC was willing to take a lot of weeknights.
No team has no more than one Wed/Thur night game. Its not crazy like the MAC's deal. SBC gets damn good value out of it too.
RE: CUSA targets and vulnerabilities - No Bull - 09-14-2021 05:40 PM
FAU’s basketball arena removes them from contention. Plus USF is not going to accept FAU. That’s not how USF rolls.
Also I had to laugh about UWF. Their wonderful stadium is a minor league baseball stadium about 8 miles from campus.
RE: CUSA targets and vulnerabilities - bill dazzle - 09-14-2021 05:45 PM
(09-14-2021 03:07 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:(09-14-2021 03:00 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:(09-14-2021 02:54 PM)bullet Wrote: https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/conference-usa-roundtable-expansion-candidates-and-targets/ar-AAOqO7M
Good read on several sportswriters opinions on who the CUSA could least afford to lose, who they are most likely to lose and what they do.
Good find. I did not realize FAU brought such a robust number of plusses.
I think that's very much up for debate. On the hierarchy I think the AAC is probably picking on in no particular order
Academics
Facilities/Budget
Football Strength
Basketball Strength
Market
They'd probably fit the AAC metrics in for sure market, good enough in football strength and football facilities but absolutely dreadful in basketball facilities and basketball quality and for whatever this is worth they'd be the lowest rated school on the USNWR rankings by a pretty wide margin.
Yep. Now that I read all the posts in this thread, I realize I overreacted. FAU does not look as appealing.
RE: CUSA targets and vulnerabilities - herdfan129 - 09-14-2021 05:46 PM
(09-14-2021 05:38 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote:(09-14-2021 05:32 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote: I'll just throw this in here:
There are only three reasons the SBC media deal is better (marginally) than C-USA.
1.) SBC was willing to sign a LONG term deal giving everything over to espn. This caps their value ( to a large extent) and gives them zero wiggle room- "captive".
SBC's media deal was through 2028 and just reupped till 2031. We wiggled to more money and linear games. Have a stellar year and renegotiate when possible
Quote:3.) KEY reason-- SBC was willing to take a lot of weeknights.
No team has more than one Wed/Thur night game. Its not crazy like the MAC's deal. SBC gets damn good value out of it too.
Louisiana has 6 home games this year....only 3 of them are on Saturday?
RE: CUSA targets and vulnerabilities - b0ndsj0ns - 09-14-2021 05:53 PM
(09-14-2021 05:45 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:(09-14-2021 03:07 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:(09-14-2021 03:00 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:(09-14-2021 02:54 PM)bullet Wrote: https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/conference-usa-roundtable-expansion-candidates-and-targets/ar-AAOqO7M
Good read on several sportswriters opinions on who the CUSA could least afford to lose, who they are most likely to lose and what they do.
Good find. I did not realize FAU brought such a robust number of plusses.
I think that's very much up for debate. On the hierarchy I think the AAC is probably picking on in no particular order
Academics
Facilities/Budget
Football Strength
Basketball Strength
Market
They'd probably fit the AAC metrics in for sure market, good enough in football strength and football facilities but absolutely dreadful in basketball facilities and basketball quality and for whatever this is worth they'd be the lowest rated school on the USNWR rankings by a pretty wide margin.
Yep. Now that I read all the posts in this thread, I realize I overreacted. FAU does not look as appealing.
Getting back to the main AAC problem, once you get past UAB every single option falls flat on multiple of these criteria. Even UAB doesn't knock most of these out of the park, just doesn't get an F on any of them. Not necessarily sure FAU fails these at any higher rate than any other candidate out there.
RE: CUSA targets and vulnerabilities - topper1296 - 09-14-2021 05:54 PM
Here are football and bball winning percentages from the last 8 seasons from another poster in another thread.
https://csnbbs.com/thread-928489-post-17608416.html#pid17608416
Code:
FB MBB Enrollment (K)
.676 .588 46 Liberty Indep/Asun
.667 .535 13 Marshall CUSA
.663 .637 20 Toledo MAC
.602 .617 20 W. Kentucky CUSA
.598 .693 12 La Tech CUSA
.596 .556 30 Ohio MAC
.576 .475 17 Northern Illinois MAC
.563 .464 22 Western Mich MAC
.532 .674 32 Buffalo MAC
.520 .479 4 Army Indep/Pat
.515 .571 22 MTSU CUSA
.495 .435 15 Southern Miss CUSA
.490 .618 22 UAB CUSA
.485 .395 30 Fla Atlantic CUSA
.479 .516 22 Central Mich MAC
.455 .506 38 North Texas CUSA
.430 .472 21 Ball St MAC
.426 .560 30 UTSA CUSA
.425 .641 24 Old Dominion CUSA
.421 .531 17 Bowling Green MAC
.402 .450 58 Fla International CUSA
.376 .637 18 Akron MAC
.366 .413 7 Rice CUSA
.356 .426 20 Miami MAC
.344 .533 19 Eastern Mich MAC
.313 .408 31 Charlotte CUSA
.295 .599 28 Kent State MAC
.264 .756 24 New Mexico St Indep/WAC
.247 .512 25 UTEP CUSA
.205 .481 31 UMass Indep/A10RE: CUSA targets and vulnerabilities - b0ndsj0ns - 09-14-2021 05:56 PM
Wow, I didn't realize Marshall's enrollment was that low.